1. Do you believe that global climate change is a problem that requires policy and action at the federal level? If so, what would you propose? If not, why not?
Sean Bielat
Yes, global climate change is an issue that should be addressed at the federal level as necessary. The starting point should be a non-politicized assessment of the relevant science and research. The follow-on to the research should be a non-politicized assessment of options to deal with identified, reversible or preventable, issues. Any resulting policy action should favor economically sustainable, market-driven solutions over regulation. It’s important to realize though that global climate change is an issue of global concern; the U.S. shouldn’t act unilaterally to enact any solutions that harm the U.S. economy or U.S. competitiveness.
Joe Kennedy
Yes, I believe that climate change threatens irreparable harm to our ecosystems and economy, and that it is a problem that requires action at the federal level. In Congress, I will work collaboratively and constructively to develop a comprehensive and balanced national energy policy that addresses climate change among other environmental challenges while taking into account the costs to consumers and businesses. My approach would focus on four main components: energy conservation and efficiency, increased efficiency in the use of transportation fuels, increased investments in renewable energy, and responsible harvesting of domestic fossil fuels.
[/rollover-tab][rollover-tab name=”tab2″ label=”Federal Policy”]
2. Should federal energy policy support a transition to renewable energy and away from fossil fuels?
Sean Bielat
Federal energy policy shouldn’t favor any particular energy solutions, whether fossil fuel based or renewable. What the U.S. government can and should do is leverage its purchasing power, e.g., via the Department of Defense, to hold competitive bid acquisitions that provide greater overall economic value and which potentially advance development of alternative power sources.
Joe Kennedy
Yes, increasing our investment in wind, solar, geothermal, hydro-power, and biofuels will further reduce our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels and slash greenhouse gases and other emissions. I do believe that federal energy policy should support a transition to these renewable sources. For example, I support setting a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS) to build on the successes of the 29 states that have used that approach to accelerate their development of renewable energy. I also support the long-term development of the offshore wind industry in the Northeast, including the Cape Wind project, which alone will nearly double the amount of renewable power produced in Massachusetts.
[/rollover-tab][rollover-tab name=”tab3″ label=”Subsidies”]
3. Virtually all forms of energy benefit from government subsidies, largely but not exclusively tax preferences and R&D spending. The US EIA estimated the total of these subsidies at $16.6 billion in FY 2007 in a report requested by Congress). What is your view on the role of such subsidies in energy production? What is your position on existing subsidies by fuel type (coal, oil/petroleum, natural gas, nuclear, renewables)?
Sean Bielat
I generally oppose subsidies; that holds true across energy production types. Subsidies effectively use tax payer dollars that indirectly raise costs to consumers, making consumers “pay” twice.
Joe Kennedy
The Production Tax Credit for wind-energy projects has successfully increased the development of wind power and led to significant price reductions, so in the short term I support extending that credit to promote further renewable production. For nuclear power – which I think has a role to play because of its ability to create baseload power without greenhouse emissions – I would proceed cautiously with extending subsidies to new nuclear power plants, but I recognize such subsidies may be necessary to make nuclear energy cost-competitive in the short-term. The oil and gas industry currently receives $4 billion annually in direct federal subsidies. This is one of the most profitable sectors in the history of global commerce, so I believe we should re-direct those funds to other priorities. In the long-term, I would like to see all energy sources stand on their own, without subsidy, as long as their full financial and environmental costs were accounted for.
[/rollover-tab][rollover-tab name=”tab4″ label=”Military”]
4. Do you support or oppose the US military’s efforts to reduce energy use and pursue the development and deployment of renewable energy?
Sean Bielat
I absolutely support all defense efforts to limit energy use in order to reduce the logistical load in the battlespace, while increasing combat capabilities.
Joe Kennedy
Government can be – and has been – a first mover in helping stimulate the demand for energy-efficient technologies. I strongly support efforts in all areas of government to reduce energy use and pursue renewable energy alternatives. The military’s heavy demand for energy on its bases and battlefields make it a good candidate for those efforts. Further, successful energy-saving technologies and strategies developed by government entities such as the military can often subsequently be integrated into commercial and residential markets.
[/rollover-tab][/rollover-tabs]